alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2001 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-20-2001

Pennsylvania Pharm. Assoc v. Houstoun

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 00-1898

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2001 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Pennsylvania Pharm. Assoc v. Houstoun" (2001). 2001 Decisions. Paper 163.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001/163
Filed July 20, 2001 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 00-1898 

PENNSYLVANIA PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION; BELL 

EDGE PHARMACY; BROAD STREET APOTHECARY; 

BURNS PHARMACY; CAMBRIA PHARMACY #3; 

CHRISTIAN STREET PHARMACY; ELWYN PHARMACY; 

ESTERSON PHARMACY; FOSTERS PHARMACY; GETWELL 

PHARMACY; MCKEAN STREET PHARMACY; ROSICA 

PHARMACY; S&S COMMUNITY DRUG, INC.; SILVERMAN 

PHARMACY; TIOGA DRUG COMPANY; WELDON 

PHARMACY, and other Similarly Situated Pharmacies; 

TIRELLI, INC., dba BROAD STREET APOTHECARY; 

ROBERT SCHREIBER, dba BURNS' PHARMACY; 

CAMBRIA PHARMACIES, INC.; BARRY JACOBS, dba 

ELWYN PHARMACY; 2401 EAST YORK STREET, INC., dba 

ESTERSON'S PHARMACY; RIAZ U. RAHMAN, dba 

GETWELL PHARMACY; FOSTER PHARMACY, INC.; 

HAUSSMANN'S PHARMACY; MCKEAN STREET 

PHARMACY, INC.; THOMAS BETTERIDGE, dba ROSICA 

PHARMACY; WELDON PHARMACY, INC, 

 Appellants 

v. 

FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN 

(D.C. Civ. No. 99-cv-00491) 

Argued: April 20, 2001 

Before: ALITO, McKEE, and ALARCON,* 

Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

*Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth 

Circuit, sitting by designation. 
Present: BECKER, Chief Judge, MANSMANN, NYGAARD, 

ALITO, ROTH, McKEE, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, and 

FUENTES, Circuit Judges. 

AMENDED O R D E R 

A majority of the active judges, who are not recused, 

having voted for hearing en banc in the above appeal, it is 

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court list the above case 

for hearing en banc at the convenience of the Court. 

 BY THE COURT, 

 /s/ Edward R. Becker 

 Chief Judge 

DATED: July 20, 2001 

A True Copy: 

Teste: 

 Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Third Circuit 

 2
EXHIBIT 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Gulfstar  Energy,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period  ending  June 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Robert, President of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2)     The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of
                operations of the Company.


                                         /s/Robert McCann
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Robert McCann, President
Date: May 11, 2011
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6726

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DWAYNE MITCHELL LITTLEJOHN, a/k/a Manson , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 2:08

- cr - 00036

- MR

- WCM

- 2 ; 1:22

- cv - 00090

- MR )

Submitted : November 15, 2022 Decided: January 4, 202 3

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Dwayne Mitchell Littlejohn , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6726 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/04/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Dwayne Mitchell Littlejohn, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis . Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in d enying the petition based on Littlejohn ’s failure to establish a valid reason for his delay in seeking relief. See United
States v. Lesane , 40 F.4th 191, 19 6

- 97 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of review and explaining requirements for coram nobis relief)

. Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Littlejohn’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6726 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/04/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7909

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE ALBERT DANGERFIELD, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-98-

212-AMD, CA-01-1730-AMD)

Submitted: March 15, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Albert Dangerfield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Philip S.

Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

George Albert Dangerfield, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Dangerfield,

Nos. CR-98-212-AMD, CA-01-1730-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 3, 2001). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Monet Entertainment, Group Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen Replin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






August 2, 2005                   /s/ Stephen Replin
-------------                    ------------------------
                                 Stephen Replin
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 8360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-627]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Second Meeting of the Big Cypress National Preserve Off-Road 
Vehicle (ORV) Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, ORV Advisory 
Committee.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 
92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, 10), notice is hereby given of 
the second meeting of the Big Cypress National Preserve ORV Advisory 
Committee.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Tuesday, March 18, 2008, beginning at 
3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Everglades City Community 
Center, 205 Buckner Avenue, Everglades City, Florida. Written comments 
may be sent to: Superintendent, Big Cypress National Preserve, 33100 
Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, FL 34141-1000, Attn: ORV Advisory 
Committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Gustin, Superintendent, Big 
Cypress National Preserve, 33100 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, Florida 
34141-1000; 239-695-1103, or go to the Web site http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkId=352&projectId=20437.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established (Federal 
Register, August 1, 2007, pp. 42108-42109) pursuant to the Preserve's 
2000 Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix) to examine issues 
and make recommendations regarding the management of ORVs in the 
Preserve. The agenda for this meeting will be published by press 
release and on the http://parkplanning.nps.gov/
projectHome.cfm?parkId=352&projectID=20437 Web site. The meeting will 
be open to the public, and time will be reserved for public comment. 
Oral comments will be summarized for the record. If individuals wish to 
have their comments recorded verbatim, they must submit them in 
writing.

Pedro Ramos,
Deputy Superintendent, Big Cypress National Preserve.
[FR Doc. 08-627 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-06-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KWESI KHARY MUHAMMAD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CHRISTINE BARBER, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-17346 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02592-TLN-EFB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Kwesi Khary Muhammad appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Colony Cove Props, LLC v. City of Carson, 640 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-17346 

F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Muhammad’s deliberate indifference 

claim because Muhammad failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant 

disregarded an excessive risk to Muhammad’s foot condition. See Toguchi v. 

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately 

indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate 

health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the 

course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). 

The district court properly dismissed Muhammad’s claim for intentional 

infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) because Muhammad failed to allege facts 

sufficient to show that defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress. See 

Wong v. Tai Jing, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 747, 766 (Ct. App. 2010) (setting forth the 

three-part test for IIED under California law). 

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Muhammad’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is 

denied. 

AFFIRMED.
EX-31.1 CERTIFICATION OF 302

 

**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Credex Corporation

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)

Section 302 Certification

 

I, Arunkumar Rajapandy, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Credex Corporation, certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Credex Corporation;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, the results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.     Theissuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the for the issuer and have:

 

(a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectivenessof the issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this reportany change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     Theissuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) all significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

Date: May 14, 2012

 

 

Credex Corporation

 

By: __/S/ Arunkumar Rajapandy_

Arunkumar Rajapandy,

Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 132828 & (63) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices STANDARD FEDERAL BANK, N.A. Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 132828

v CoA: 266053 Wayne CC: 05-517910-CH LAWRENCE KORN, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ ______________

On order of Chief Justi ce, defendant-appellant havi ng submitted a “Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Leave to App eal” and it further appear ing that counsel for plaintiff-appellee concurs in such relief, th e application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 30, 2007

Clerk
*

Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the

Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-8989.

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PARK 'N GO OF GA., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Aug. 29, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Georgia (No. 1:93-cv-1541-JEC), Julie E. Carnes, Judge.

Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON*

, Senior

Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Park 'N Go appealed the grant of summary judgment to

United States Fidelity & Guaranty (USF & G), arguing the district

court erroneously concluded that USF & G's liability was limited to

$250,000 and therefore erroneously granted summary judgment in

favor of Appellee. We—pursuant to Ga. Const. art. VI, § 6 para. 4;

O.C.G.A. § 15-2-9; and Rule 37 of the Supreme Court of

Georgia—certified to the Supreme Court of Georgia the question of

USF & G's liability. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Park

'N Go of Georgia, Inc., 66 F.3d 273 (11th Cir.1995).

The Supreme Court has answered the certified question in the

affirmative. Park 'N Go of Georgia, Inc. v. United States Fidelity

& Guaranty Co., 266 Ga. 787, 471 S.E.2d 500 (1996). In the light

of the Supreme Court of Georgia's opinion, we affirm the decision

of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
# Implementation of Sections 603 and 604 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228)

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Consistent with the authority contained in section 604 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228)(the “Act”), and with reference to the determinations set out in the report to be transmitted to the Congress pursuant to section 603 of that Act regarding noncompliance by the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority with certain commitments, I hereby impose the sanction set out in section 604(a)(2), “Downgrade in Status of the PLO Office in the United States.” This sanction is imposed for a period of 180 days from the date hereof or until such time as the next report required by section 603 of the Act is transmitted to the Congress, whichever is later. You are authorized and directed to transmit to the appropriate congressional committees the report described in section 603 of the Act.

Furthermore, I hereby determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to waive that sanction, pursuant to section 604(c) of the Act. This waiver shall be effective for a period of 180 days from the date hereof or until such time as the next report required by section 603 of the Act is transmitted to the Congress, whichever is later.

                    You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and to publish it in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 08-868

Billing code 4710-10
Exhibit 10.15


 


Share Exchange Agreement


 


Transferor (Party A): Wenzhou Xibolun
Fluid Equipment Co., Limited


 


Transferee (Party B): HONGKONG XIBOLUN
TECHNOLOGY LIMITED


 


The registered capital of the Sino-foreign
joint venture Wenzhou Xibolun Automation Project Technology Co., Ltd. is RMB 3,000,000. Zhejiang Xibolun Technology Co., Ltd. contributed
capital of RMB 300,000, 10% of the registered capital. Wenzhou Xibolun Fluid Equipment Co., Limited contributed capital of RMB
300,000, 10% of the registered capital. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD contributed RMB 2,400,000, 80% of the registered capital. Currently
because Wenzhou Xibolun Fluid Equipment Co., Limited intends to focus on other areas, with consent of the other two investors,
it decides to transfer all of its shares in the joint venture to HONGKONG XIBOLUN TECHNOLOGY LIMITED.


 


		I.	Parties’ Names and Addresses:



 


Party A: Wenzhou Xibolun Fluid
Equipment Co., Limited


 


Legal Address: Binhai Ind. Park,
Yongzhong Town, Longwan District, Wenzhou


 


Postal Code: 325000


 


License Number: 330300400005818


 


Contact Phone Number: 0577-86899698


 


Party B: HONGKONG XIBOLUN TECHNOLOGY
LIMITED


 


License Number: 1615940


 


Legal Address: Room 1003, 10/F,
Witty Commercial Bldg, 1A-1L Tung Choi St, Mong Kok, Hong Kong


 


Phone Number: 13758822773


 


		II.	Share Transferred and Consideration: Party A transfers 10% of shares in Wenzhou Xibolun Automation
Project Technology Co., Ltd. with paid-in capital of zero to Party B without any consideration.



 


		III.	Rights and Obligations: On the day when the share transfer is closed, all the rights and obligations
that Party A owns are transferred to Party B.



 


		IV.	Liability for Breach of Contract: If Party A does not transfer the right timely, it should compensate
all loss incurred.



 


		V.	Dispute resolution: For any dispute, Party and Party B shall negotiate. If it cannot be negotiated,
either party can submit it to Longwan District Court for suit according to Contract Law of the People's Republic of China.



 


		VI.	Agreement Execution and Termination: This agreement is effective after being approved by the original
approval authority. It is terminated after both parties perform it.



 






    	1



    	 



    

 


		VII.	This agreement is signed by the representatives of both parties at Wenzhou, China on October 30,
2012. It has 8 originals, with Party A and Party B each holding one copy, Wenzhou Xibolun Automation Project Technology Co., Ltd
holding one copy for record, and other being submitted to relevant authorities for record.



 


Party A: /s/ Wenzhou Xibolun Fluid Equipment
Co., Limited


 


Party B: /s/ HONGKONG XIBOLUN TECHNOLOGY LIMITED


 


2012-10-30


 








    	2